My question is what should happen if there is such a rule, not necessarily what should happen in such a case.
And my sense is that such rules are likely pretty common, even if usually unstated. There are two norms, as I understand them, in American business life generally. First, a weak norm: People are usually expected to shake hands in certain situations (though some sometimes substitute hugs, for people they are close with). Second, a very strong norm: If someone offers a hand to shake, you shake it. Indeed, refusing to shake a hand is usually perceived as something of an insult. Now of course this norm doesn’t apply if the shaking is visibly impossible or very difficult, e.g., if the person has a broken arm, or is carrying things in that hand, and the like. And the person might explain, “I’m sorry, but my religion forbids me from shaking hands with people of the opposite sex.” That, though, is where the morale costs come in -- some people may perceive this as a slight. (Query whether a man’s refusal to shake a woman’s offered hand would generally be perceived differently from a woman’s refusal to shake a man’s offered hand, and whether such a difference should matter.) Should employers be able to insist on people adhering these norms, to prevent customers and coworkers from feeling slighted? Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 8:53 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Religious accommodation schemes and discriminatory practices Exemption requests? Huh? There's no indication that the employer here had a rule that you must shake the boss's hand, or that the employee sought --let alone was denied -- an exemption from such a (nonexistent) rule. But if an employer were so stupid as to impose such a rule, then yes, I imagine the Title VII accommodation requirement, modest as it is, would compel a religious exemption. "morale costs"? seriously? On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> wrote: I thought I’d pass along another post from Howard Friedman -- any thoughts on how religious accommodation schemes (whether RFRA-like or Title-VII-like) should deal with religiously motivated refusals to shake hands with members of the opposite sex? Should there be a categorical rule rejecting such exemption requests, on the theory that discriminatory practices should never be accommodated? (Should it matter whether the woman suggests, as an accommodation, that she not shake hands with anyone, male or female?) Or should an employer have to accommodate such requests, especially if any morale cost stemming from the accommodation comes from coworkers’ emotional reactions to the religious practice? Eugene Feed: Religion Clause Posted on: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:00 AM Author: Howard Friedman Subject: Muslim Caseworker Sues Charging Religious Discrimination A Bangladeshi Muslim woman who was a social worker and had been employed as a case manager by a behavioral healthcare company filed suit in an Oregon state court last week charging religious, racial, national origin and disability discrimination in her termination. The complaint (full text<http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/cascadia.discrimination.suit.pdf>) in Rahman v. Cascade Behavioral Healthcare, Inc., (OR Cir., Ct., filed 10/7/2016), claims, in part, that adverse employment action against her stemmed from her refusing for religious reasons to shake hands with men (including her boss), her wearing of a hijab, and her praying at work up to three times per day. The Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries had dismissed her complaint filed with them, finding inadequate evidence of discrimination. (Full text<http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/Sharmin%20Rahman%2016-01271-DISMEMO-20160708134816-1.pdf> of OBLI order). The Oregonian<http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/10/islamic_woman_who_wouldnt_shak.html> reports on the lawsuit. View article...<http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/10/muslim-caseworker-sues-charging.html> _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.